The Movie Memphis Belle News?

[rwdfresno]

Let's just be happy that the George Petty estate or Esquire magazine hasn't acted in the same way that the NMUSAF has or the NMUSAF would likely be hassled over the use of George Petty's original 1941 artwork.

Ryan

:axe: NMF on Everything and be done wiff da confusion.........the NMUSAF will have to butt out of the paint scheme thing with the Memphis Belle impostor ....should they want to interject, then the Collins Foundation could naturally be required through some arm twisting litigation, to remove all that beautiful paint from 909 as it represents a real B-17 that was shot down during actual armed conflict and someone is "offended" because its like a ghost or something and they are haunted by the fact that 909 was actually shot down....but here it is on a ramp staring at them, daring them to pay money to fly in her......don't see it happening.

I will admit however that it would be nice and proper if the management/operators of the Memphis Belle impostor posted on their information about their particular airframe, that it is a replica of the original on display at the National Museum of the US Air Force.

Personally I don't care how they have her painted, h e l l s bells, paint her up as a formation ship with poka dots....*hands in the air* ...don't care...I just want to see them, touch them, hear those radials cough to life...climb aboard and drink in that smell of an airplane...and when I have done all that, drop my fat a double s in the shade under her wing and relax, reflect on the crews that these types of machines carried into harms way and simply wonder what its like to strap one of these babys on......

Gary, re-read page one of this thread. The MARC B-17 folks entered an agreement with the MBMA. They went back on the agreement. That is where the trouble lies. Amazing that no one wants to place blame on where it belongs.

Also 909 was not shot down. She returned to the states.

We keep touching on the Belle. What about other nose art. What if I want to restore a B-17 and paint it as Texas Raiders. Oh that's right, I'll be sued. You can't even take a picture of the nose art in Midland because it is copyrighted by the CAF. Says so right on the door to the gallery. But no one seems to care to touch on that, only that the NMUSAF called someone out for not honoring a deal with a smaller group.

As someone that works on a static B-17 "Miss Liberty Belle" I can tell you that it sucks having other aircraft with similar or same names. it takes away from your project. When we went to Oshkosh with the tail stinger of ours for display, many thought it was the tail from Liberty Belle (the one with the fire). So we had to be sure to tell them the story of the real Miss Liberty Belle and the 8 men that gave their lives in it. Then Barksdale paints their aircraft up as, you guessed it "Miss Liberty Belle".

So what is worse that a group went back on what they told the MBMA they would do, or the NMUSAF holding them to it.

[mustangdriver]

Ryan why is it so hard to understand that the NMUSAF only made them hold true to the agreement they made. I fail to see why that is wrong.

[tulsaboy]

Mustangdriver,
i think what some folks struggle with is the original premise that artwork and markings applied on a government asset, which is always in the public domain,and which were applied by a government employee, and which was not an original work at all but which was at best a derivitive work based on another's copyrighted work, could be copyrighted or trademarked in the first place. Beyond that, the idea that a governmenta or pseudo-governmental organization would be actively pursuing litigation against a non-profit organization for paying tribute to the original aircraft is a bit disturbing. Especially when NMUSAF and the owners of the tribute share many of the same goals. It's not as simple as you make it to be. That being said, there are so may great stories from the war to tell, maybe it's time to tell some of those stories as the Collings Foundation does.

Kevin

[mustangdriver]

I find it funny that we are only concerned that the NMUSAF screwed over a non profit. We aren't talking about when that non profit went back on their word to another non profit. The truth of the matter is MARC painted that plane to make money. Period. Honoring the real one had nothing to do with it. Like it or not it is that simple

[JDK]

...for paying tribute to the original aircraft ...

Oh, c'mon. Hardly a tribute, but clearly mis-representing (by omission) one aircraft as another, more famous and historic machine.

There's plenty of examples where there's no problems if a copy, repaint or tribute is clearly represented as such - and more than enough court cases where a similar example is passed off as the historic (and valuable) example.

Just try touring something when you 'overlook' mentioning it's not the famous one people think it is - you'll quickly find you'll need to amend your label, and maybe get fined or injuncted.

This is a tired argument, but the principle's simple, and rightly, legally enforceable.

Regards,

[rwdfresno]

Kevin said exactly my sentiment. Personally, I just don't agree with the premise that trademark can be claimed by NMUSAF from an ethical point of view. Legally may be different, there are plenty of unethical legal precedents out there. You can quote any sort of agreement you want and I've never been a fan of the ethical standards on either parties to those agreements so I'm don't care one bit about Tallichet my point is coming strictly from how that precedent affects anyone in the future. As far as I am concerned I should be able to paint my aircraft like any aircraft that has already been paid for by the taxpayers of any generation unless the artwork is already intellectual property of another private citizen.

Ryan

Last edited by rwdfresno on Sun May 27, 2012 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[mustangdriver]

So ethics only come into play for the NMUSAF. Which by the way only trademarked it to stop them from presenting their aircraft as the real one(which was being done) THe parties flying the airplane have no responsibility to honor ethics. Meaning If you are going to fly the plane, it is cool to screw others over.

SO how about the CAF trademarking nose art panels in Midland, charging you to see them, and not allowing photos to be taken.

I agree with your last sentence, however if the real aircraft surviives you have a duty to inform folks that this is not the real one. SOmething that they were not clearly doing.

[JDK]

... there are plenty of unethical legal presidents out there. ...

Well, that's made the thread worth having, if nothing else has!

Most people in most of the world find there a need for legal protection from some people representing something as original - when it isn't - for profit, advantage or fame.

It is that simple.

Regards,

Last edited by JDK on Sat May 26, 2012 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Cherrybomber13]

Once an asset was sold by the federal guvmunt, say a b-17 with nose art or portion there of, wouldn't art work attached become property of the purchaser or public domain?

[JDK]

Andrew (et al) It's got nothing to do with being government or state owned, but to do with the flying B-17 being mis-represented (by omission) as something it isn't. There's been plenty of airworthy replicas of the Spirit of St Louis out there, but no attempt to lead people to believe they're the one Lindbergh flew the Atlantic in. If there were, that's where the issue starts.

The problem lies with over selling, not the state.

Regards,

PS - Of course this wouldn't be a problem if flying B-17s weren't common, and thus competitive...

[bombadier29]

I have never seen one single shred of proof anywhere or from anybody that shows the Tallichet airplane was ever intentionally represented as the real one. All I have ever seen or heard was "somebody told me..." Nobody can do anything about people coming up to the NMAF and saying they saw the real one out at an airshow.

If there is proof that the Tallichet airplane was ever intentionally represented as the actual WWII Memphis Belle, I would like to see it.

Legally may be different, there are plenty of unethical legal presidents out there. You can quote any sort of agreement you want and I've neer been a fan of the ethical standards on either parties to those agreements so I'm don't care one bit about Tallichet my point is coming strictly from how that president affects anyone in the future.

I think the word you mean is PRECEDENT not president.

[mustangdriver]

There is no proof? All you have to do is look at the markings change. The MBMA held the rights to the Memphis Belle while it was in their care. The Tallichet plane had to get permission to carry the name. The deal made was it could be painted as the Belle as long as the markings varied and that the marking could be carried for a specified time only. The minute the movie belle got repainted to look exactly like the real one it became a violation of the agreement. When the Belle went to Dayton the rights of the name went with it.

As for Tallichet he said in our hangar that, "As long as that paint job makes me money it will stay painted that way.". I worked on with the Belle for a few years other WIX members worked with me at this time. They saw and heard with their own ears some folks mid represent it. Then they started selling pics not of filming but of the real plane. Many times they would not misrepresent it, but just not say anything at all. Leaving folks to assume it was the real deal.

Is the NMUSAF always right? Not at all. But there are cases when what they did was right. This is one of them.

[brucev]

how does one (or an organization) "own the rights" to history?

[rwdfresno]

Andrew (et al) It's got nothing to do with being government or state owned, but to do with the flying B-17 being mis-represented (by omission) as something it isn't. There's been plenty of airworthy replicas of the Spirit of St Louis out there, but no attempt to lead people to believe they're the one Lindbergh flew the Atlantic in. If there were, that's where the issue starts.

Well, to you it may simply be about the misrepresentation, but I take issue with the premise of the trademark as well. While I agree misrepresentation is an issue worth noting if it is true however, there are already laws regarding fraud and if it is truly misrepresented that issue should be dealt with directly as opposed to creating a legal precedence for removing/changing the markings and it being represented as "it is trademarked by the NMUSAF and there was an preexisting agreement in place," which is what is being done in this thread.

... there are plenty of unethical legal presidents out there. ... Well, that's made the thread worth having, if nothing else has!

One of the perils of posting from the iPhone. You never are quite sure exactly what you will say. I meant to say "precedent." ..or perhaps a Freudian slip but, the world will never know the truth

I think the word you mean is PRECEDENT not president.

Ditto. Yes, obviously that is what was meant. Seriously though, I think you meant "bombardier29?." ...and PLEASE do yourself a favor and DO NOT look up "bombadier" on urbandictionary.com like I just did.

As for Tallichet he said in our hangar that, "As long as that paint job makes me money it will stay painted that way.". I worked on with the Belle for a few years other WIX members worked with me at this time. They saw and heard with their own ears some folks mid represent it. Then they started selling pics not of filming but of the real plane. Many times they would not misrepresent it, but just not say anything at all. Leaving folks to assume it was the real deal.

That's fine, as I alluded to, I have never had any love for Tallichet. I have to say though, while I agree a deliberate misrepresentation is unethical, but it isn't the duty of a private citizen to educate someone simply because you and I think they should. I own a 1970s M151A2 and when people see it 75% of them say "hey nice Willy's" or "that's a nice WWII jeep." In the past I've tried to educate folks that this is actually a Vietnam or later era vehicle, but quite honestly I've stopped correcting them because they either look at me with a bewildered look, or argue with me that their dad drove a jeep just like this across France in WWII. It isn't my legal or even ethical duty to educate these people. Am I misrepresenting it? Maybe to some I am, but the fact is that I don't have an obligation to do so.

Once an asset was sold by the federal guvmunt, say a b-17 with nose art or portion there of, wouldn't art work attached become property of the purchaser or public domain?

I'm no lawyer but, I do stay at Holiday Inn Express occasionally though so I think that might qualify me to guess. My understanding would be no. I can sell you an original George Petty sketch, that doesn't mean you then own any of the licensing rights as far as I am aware.

So ethics only come into play for the NMUSAF. Which by the way only trademarked it to stop them from presenting their aircraft as the real one(which was being done) THe parties flying the airplane have no responsibility to honor ethics. Meaning If you are going to fly the plane, it is cool to screw others over.

Actually, my statement above was that I don;t really care for the business practices of those on either end of the debate. Meaning I don't really like the business practices of either. My point is 100% around the question if the the government ethically and(or) legally (the ethics and legalities could be different) can trademark, copyright, patent, etc. anything at all to protect a private citizen from utilizing that intellectual property. My point would be that any agreement between Tallichet and anyone proclaiming to own trademark to "Memphis Belle" should be and should always have been null and void.

Similarly (but slightly different) if I went to you to enter an agreement to paint my Dodge Challenger like the "General Lee" and you granted it to me for a period of a year, then I realized you didn't own the trademark to begin with and went to the trademark owner who then granted permanent permission, I don't think you can sue me after a year because I haven't removed my markings. The reason is that you don't own the trademark and our agreement isn't worth the paper it was printed on. Now the situation is slightly different because according to you NMUSAF or Mud Island folks or whomever apparently do "legally" own the trademark. As I said, ethics and law isn't always in alignment. However, I think that there is not only a question of ethics but maybe even a legal argument to be made that "Memphis Belle" should not actually be something that can be trademarked by the NMUSAF. Just because something is trademarked or patented or whatever it doesn't mean that it is inarguable. It means it made it through the bureaucratic process of being trademarked or patented. Much like I could steal a car and "get it titled" but that doesn't mean that it is irrefutable evidence that I own this car legally.There are many lawsuits that have occurred and continue to occur to argue if something was in fact unique intellectual property that was legally entered into patent and trademark protection.

Ryan

[krlang]

Wow, Did this get out of hand.
Not that I really care who paints their airplane like another one, other that it looks goofy when they both show up to the same event. Kind of like seeing the dress shop selling multiple copies of the same dress before prom night. OOPS!


This argument is about what again?

The Air Force Museum took back an unairworthy airplane with the same paint scheme as another that has been Flying for years since it starred in a movie with the same name. Dave Tallichet painted his airplane in that scheme because it made enough money to keep it on the road in those colors. That airplane has been operated recently with a silly moniker like The "Movie" Memphis Belle because someone got pissy that wanted to keep the name on their relocated dusty unairworthy original for themselves. Now, someone else is going to tour that airplane all year long to replace one that was destroyed.

Somewhere in there I was thinking of how the guys in Geneseo are losing out a little, thats all I see.

Better go after Sally B Too! I think I have seen a 124485 on the tail of that Airworthy airplane too.

I guess I am tired and cranky, I will stop now.